Rhetorical Analysis Of The Article 'An Animal's Place'

Desolate Darkness

After class each day around noon, college students venture off campus to suppress their appetite for meat. As the nearest drive thru serves students various processed meats, fulfilling their needs, most ignore the life of the animal they have just consumed. Well known writer Michael Pollan writes a compelling article called “An Animal’s Place”, which was published in The New York Times Magazine November, 10th 2002. In this article he defends his speciesism, as he describes the mood of animal activists who demand rights for animals, whom they believe are equal to humans. His purpose is to impress upon readers the idea that eating animals, is part of our existence, but treating them cruelly should not be. In order to accomplish

this purpose, he researches books written by several philosophers, he also tours factories and farms where meat is processed. This gives his audience a vivid idea of the factory experience vs. farm life for animals. Overall the argument Pollan makes is effective because his use of ethos, pathos and logos- or credibility-emotion-logic- enables him to impact his readers’ provoking changes in how they view animals as food.
To begin with, Pollan demonstrates his rhetorical skills with his use of ethos.

His practical wisdom in the narration of his article provides a clever way to announce his topic, by candidly admitting to eating a rib-eye steak while reading about animal liberation. This creative anecdote enables him to focus on the topic of animal rights. He uses an analogy of slavery to conclude that eating an animal while reading about animal rights do not mix well. Pollan researches several philosophers like Tom Regan and James Rachel’s to name a few, in order to gain a better understanding of his topic, the mention of experts shows his reader how knowledgeable of the subject of animal rights he is which retains his audience’s attention. The mention of Animal Liberation written by Peter Singer provokes Pollan to address the issues of slaughtering animals for meat and puts him on the defensive side. He keeps his readers attention by constantly engaging both sides of the topic. For instance, his introductory statements focus his readers to the discussion of animal rights yet as he approaches his body statements he focuses more on animal cruelty. Eventually, stating “he is not going to become a vegetarian per say, but through his current animal farming and factory experience, he will be considering how his dinner got to his plate” (Pollan para 79). This engages his audience in showing his defensive side of the discussion, and how this has emotionally affected

him.
In addition, Pollan’s use of pathos positively affects his article through his use of analogies. He is able to describe how humans perceive animals by appealing to their emotions. For instance, he states “half the dogs in America will receive Christmas presents this year, yet few of us pause to consider the miserable life of the pig an animal easily as intelligent as a dog that becomes the Christmas ham”(Pollan para 8). This allows his audience to vividly imagine a realistic fact, that many animals are mistreated just because they are out of human sight. This allows him to open up the subject of animal cruelty and discuss how unrealistic humans are towards animals. As he takes the reader on a journey following his struggles of being an animal loving carnivore, we clearly see the emotion he displays for animals as well as the feelings he has towards animal activists. When the author shows emotion, it leaves the audience feeling pity for them. For instance, he mentions “argument from marginal cases like the severely restarted being sacrificed for the chimpanzee due to animal rights” (Pollan para 15). He uses these emotional situations to rationalize his moral standpoint on animal rights. Reflecting on cases where humans are sacrificed to save an animal puts a freighting prospective on animal rights turning his reader to join his debate and agree with his perspective. This article is a constant roller coaster of emotions carefully situated to embrace his readers. He refutes the idea of animals having rights equal to human rights and instead focuses his attention on resolving animal cruelty.
Therefore, his use of logos enable his article to reveal how the morality of eating meat can be justified for many individuals.

Pollan focuses on the abuse of animals in factories in order to provide grounds to discuss his main idea. He sets the stage for his audience, by addressing beak docking, tail clipping, and small cages crammed air tight with chickens who can barely move. By approaching his topic after he expresses what he has seen in the factories better enables him to argue more convincingly, that animals should freely and naturally be allowed express themselves. With his use of inductive reasoning he puts a face on the animals, humans are consuming through his article. He brings his audience along as he tours a natural farm the kind that has existed for hundreds of years before large franchise took over the food-producing industry. This farm is set up to create the kind of atmosphere, animals thrive in, and nurturing each animal as one would a newborn child. This gives the audience an understanding of how he can morally continue to eat meat. With his knowledge he provides an alternative concern for his audience to find out where their meat comes from. With his use of logic, he justifies getting meat from natural farms where the animals life can be lived to the fullest before providing nourishment for humans. The structure of his argument fulfills the reader’s appetite for knowledge of animal rights and cruelty leaving them

satisfied.
Furthermore, the combination of all three of the pillars of rhetoric allow Pollan to write a compelling argument that appeals to speciesism and the animal activist. The combination of ethos, logos, and pathos in this article are very powerful allowing the author to become trusted by his audience. He forms a relationship with his audience by using anecdotes that are easy to relate to. For instance, when he visits a farm he shows his readers that even the PETA members eats meat as long as he witnesses the animals death” (Pollan para 75). Using pathos with this anecdote gives the audience a since of security enabling them to justify meat consumption, as if he is finishing up his argument with one last seal of approval on animal slaughtering. He continues his rhetorical appeals as he uses logic to convincingly alter his audience’s opinion on how they shop for meat stating “The only kind of meat I am comfortable eating these days is from nonindustrial animals” (Pollan para 79). This appeal to logic is a call to action because throughout his article he continuously proves with evidence that all of the meat coming from factories has been tainted from the abuse of animals raised poorly. He attempts to further convince his audience to be like him and shop local farms for meat.
Consequently, he leaves the readers with an understanding that eating meat is a natural part of human existence. He provides alternative ways options for those who feel it is morally wrong to consume animals, by providing his audience with knowledge of alternative farms where animal respect is their focus. In turn allowing the idea of animal cruelty and abuse to be heard provoking change in the way animals are treated in large factories. If only more people took the time to experience life through the eyes of an animal” (Pollan Para 73).